Home Motion Practice No Contractual Privity, Dismiss the Complaint, Claims Prince Contracting

No Contractual Privity, Dismiss the Complaint, Claims Prince Contracting

0
0
Print

October 4, 2021, Middle District of Florida – Third-Party Defendant Prince Contracting, LLC, recently moved to dismiss Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff J&L Utility Construction, Inc.’s third-party complaint against Prince Contracting.

Prince Contracting was a prime contractor on a Florida Department of Transportation construction project. Prince “sub-contracted” certain work to a third-party defendant H&M Electrical and Underground Utilities, Inc. H&M allegedly subcontracted work to J&L, but “failed to pay” J&L, even though Prince had paid H&M for the services furnished by J&L. Prince Contracting brought a motion to dismiss the complaint brought against it by J&L, alleging that J&L lacks contractual privity with Prince and has no right to enforce the subcontract because the “sub-subcontract did not bind” Prince Contracting. Prince Contracting also claims that it has already paid H&M for the very damages that J&L seeks.

Earlier this year, on April 9, 2021, Plaintiff Soneet R. Kapila, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the substantively consolidated bankruptcy estate of Richert Funding, LLC, Dwight Donald Richert and, Holly Berry Richert instituted legal proceedings against J&L Utility Construction, Inc. for “breach of a factoring agreement”. Richert Funding was a funding business with a primary focus on factoring accounts receivables. According to the complaint, Richert Funding made one or more transfers of interest of Richert Funding in property to J&L before the Debtor’s petition date. The Trustee seeks to avoid those transfers as “preferences” and “fraudulent conveyance”.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare

onebowlinggreen.com